Human rights are the most well meaning of political machinations that the West uses to assert its dominance over the rest of the world. Based on Western ideals of politics, freedom and welfare it embodies the "we know best" attitude that kept colonialism alive for so long. Ignored locally, as witnessed by Australia's refugee policy, the USA's refusal to ratify the Social and Economic Rights Covenant and Geneva convention, it is used by Western powers both left and right to assert their interests in international relations. This was witnessed in Afghanistan where we saw ex-post facto arguments concerning women's "right" to education as defense for invasion, an excuse not used in any other patriarchal nations where there is not a national interest at stake, and Saddams' torture chambers, only to be occupied and used in the same albeit lesser manner by the Coalition of the Willing. Human rights are demanded by the populace but exploited by the powerful all under the pretense of spreading "freedom". However, this freedom is liberalism and with it comes all the pitfalls of liberalism.

Furthermore, to call them rights means that there must be someone you can appeal to when they are violated. As the video said, there are 26 million people in slavery. We know where most of them are yet do nothing to rectify the situation as they are in poor Eastern European and West African nations that have no profitable resource to entice the powers that be. Is the West not violating their human rights by not intervening when they have the capacity to do so? Are you not violating the human rights of starving people when you buy that 2nd television? The argument might be given that they are not within your jurisdiction. To that I say the declaration is UNIVERSAL. The obligation is also universal. Chances are that there are people in your very city that are going hungry, with no shelter. To what extent are you violating their human rights?

Another example of the Westernisation of the human rights regime is article 23 and 24 of the charter. 23:Everyone has the right to work, for equal pay, for just renumeration and join trade unions.
How often are these violated in nations that are the bastion of rights such as the USA and France? Women still get 75% of the pay FOR THE SAME JOB. This is hard to get your head around as it wont occur in the same workplace but read into it and you will find out it works.
24: Everyone has the right to paid leave.
USA .. no such right despite signing on. So, you are violating human rights. Furhtermore, how does an agrarian society conform to this type of system? How can there be paid leave when there is no wage system? This is further evidence of the Westernisation of the human rights system.

So, despite these criticisms human rights are crucially important to the wellbeing of millions of vulnerable populations. But don't for a second think that there is no work to be done nor is the concept anywhere close to a "truth" about the world. It is a Westernised, historically contingient set of principles that are only adhered to when it is convenient to the powers that be. Adherence to human rights can liberate many but also enslave.

We have to disagree on the politics; this last fiasco has shown me politics and ideology trump our economy for some of these rascals.

There is a huge difference between letting the 1st Bank of Palookaville fail, and letting the likes of CitiBank and BOA fail. You much be rich enough to think you can ride out the resulting depression, or an ascetic.

I think I get it. So, screw everything, let's just declare currency armageddon, and start from scratch? >> ^marbles:
>> ^longde:
To answer your first question a) republican filibuster, b) democrats are a coalition, not a lock-step party, so there are "blue dogs" who would not every support tax increases.
To your second point, what would you have done 3 years ago? I'm curious. Let the banks, car companies fail, and let our country sink into depression? Obama's problem is that he didn't spend enough, not that he spent too much.
I think your last paragraph shows a very limited perspective indeed. Hope you're not anyone's CPA.>> ^marbles:
If Obama or the democrats wanted to raise taxes, why didn't they do it when they had super-majorities in the house and senate. Congress ingores it's responsibility to pass a budget the last few years and instead decides to "stimulate" the economy with huge deficit spending. 1.5 Trillion x 2 years. They overspend by 3 Trillion!!! Do you know how much a trillion dollars is? Meanwhile the Fed is handing out free loans to mega-banks totaling 15 trillion so they can speculate on any and everything with fake bids using fake money. All the while colluding with S&P and other rating agencies until the housing bubble pops, but no problem: They made huge bets on that too. But now they need bailouts, otherwise the stock market will crash: Financial terrorism!
You can't fix this with taxes and cuts. A system based on debt can only be fixed by either 1. defaulting or 2. repudiating the debt.


No, it was never an issue. Don't buy that political bullshit. Government is a lock-step party. Back then they were still claiming they wouldn't need to raise taxes, meanwhile deficit spending by 1.5 trillion.
Second point, absolutely lets the banks fail. We have bankruptcy laws for a reason. By the way, plenty did fail, just not the ones involved in the behind the scenes fraud and collusion--most of those were saved.
Third paragraph: Suppose I am the sole creator of money and I create $5 dollars. This is the only money I have ever created. I invented this money from nothing and loan/give it to you under the agreement that you would repay me $10 dollars the following week. Where do you get the other $5 dollars to repay me from?

>> ^longde:

To answer your first question a) republican filibuster, b) democrats are a coalition, not a lock-step party, so there are "blue dogs" who would not every support tax increases.
To your second point, what would you have done 3 years ago? I'm curious. Let the banks, car companies fail, and let our country sink into depression? Obama's problem is that he didn't spend enough, not that he spent too much.
I think your last paragraph shows a very limited perspective indeed. Hope you're not anyone's CPA.>> ^marbles:
If Obama or the democrats wanted to raise taxes, why didn't they do it when they had super-majorities in the house and senate. Congress ingores it's responsibility to pass a budget the last few years and instead decides to "stimulate" the economy with huge deficit spending. 1.5 Trillion x 2 years. They overspend by 3 Trillion!!! Do you know how much a trillion dollars is? Meanwhile the Fed is handing out free loans to mega-banks totaling 15 trillion so they can speculate on any and everything with fake bids using fake money. All the while colluding with S&P and other rating agencies until the housing bubble pops, but no problem: They made huge bets on that too. But now they need bailouts, otherwise the stock market will crash: Financial terrorism!
You can't fix this with taxes and cuts. A system based on debt can only be fixed by either 1. defaulting or 2. repudiating the debt.



No, it was never an issue. Don't buy that political bullshit. Government is a lock-step party. Back then they were still claiming they wouldn't need to raise taxes, meanwhile deficit spending by 1.5 trillion.

Second point, absolutely let the banks fail. We have bankruptcy laws for a reason. By the way, plenty did fail, just not the ones involved in the behind the scenes fraud and collusion--those were bailed out.

Last paragraph: Suppose I am the sole creator of money and I create $5 dollars. This is the only money I have ever created. I invented this money from nothing and loan/give it to you under the agreement that you would repay me $10 dollars the following week. Where do you get the other $5 dollars to repay me from?

To answer your first question a) republican filibuster, b) democrats are a coalition, not a lock-step party, so there are "blue dogs" who would not every support tax increases.

To your second point, what would you have done 3 years ago? I'm curious. Let the banks, car companies fail, and let our country sink into depression? Obama's problem is that he didn't spend enough, not that he spent too much.

I think your last paragraph shows a very limited perspective indeed. Hope you're not anyone's CPA.>> ^marbles:
If Obama or the democrats wanted to raise taxes, why didn't they do it when they had super-majorities in the house and senate. Congress ingores it's responsibility to pass a budget the last few years and instead decides to "stimulate" the economy with huge deficit spending. 1.5 Trillion x 2 years. They overspend by 3 Trillion!!! Do you know how much a trillion dollars is? Meanwhile the Fed is handing out free loans to mega-banks totaling 15 trillion so they can speculate on any and everything with fake bids using fake money. All the while colluding with S&P and other rating agencies until the housing bubble pops, but no problem: They made huge bets on that too. But now they need bailouts, otherwise the stock market will crash: Financial terrorism!
You can't fix this with taxes and cuts. A system based on debt can only be fixed by either 1. defaulting or 2. repudiating the debt.

>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^VoodooV:
The sooner we abolish parties, the better. Party politics is what got us here.

How exactly would you do that?
You'd pretty much have to take away people's right to freely assemble, or forbid politicians from saying what they think about the issues before they're elected...

Uhh...no, not quite taking it that far. Not interested in slashing the Bill of Rights. There will always be unofficial groups and coalitions and there will be nothing you can do to stop that, nor should you. But what we can do is just refuse to recognize people as Reps or Dems, we can abolish any sort of official backing. Disband the RNC and the DNC. Simply refuse to give it legitimacy. When the state of the union happens, refuse to give a "opposition party rebuttal" At the very least! abolish this whole "reps sit on one side of the aisle, dems sit on the other side" nonsense. There is nothing wrong with people getting together, but the gov't doesn't have to recognize it and give it legitimacy so that the party eclipses the person as it is now.
The founders were definitely wary of parties and rightfully so. I don't see any problem with a concerted effort to at the VERY LEAST, discourage parties. We're seeing first hand the damage that can be done when party comes before country.
That and make all elections publicly funded..period. You'd see some drastic changes for the better


I guess my point is you're not being realistic about the dynamic at work. What's that going to cure? Are blankfist and I going to accidentally start voting for the same candidates? Probably not. Will liberals and conservatives generally refuse to organize into voting blocs to maximize their influence? Definitely not.

More to the point, what mechanism would prevent unofficial voting blocs from forming in the House and Senate? Once they form, are we really making things better by forcing them to pretend they don't exist? By refusing to let people come up with some shorthand word for them like Democrat or Republican (or Green, Monster Raving Looney, etc.)? By refusing to give TV air time to someone who wants to rebut the President?

It'd be a bit like trying to ban "alliances" in the game of Survivor. You'd have to intervene in almost every conversation to successfully do it, and even then people will still constantly be trying to do it under the radar, because the advantages are just too great. And that's a situation with at most 20 people under the most Orwellian level of surveillance possible...

Publicly funded elections on the other hand are a great idea, but that's wholly different from trying to kill organized parties. Publicly funded elections are about trying to neutralize the effect of money on the electoral process, and that's the real issue, IMO.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^VoodooV:
The sooner we abolish parties, the better. Party politics is what got us here.

How exactly would you do that?
You'd pretty much have to take away people's right to freely assemble, or forbid politicians from saying what they think about the issues before they're elected...


Uhh...no, not quite taking it that far. Not interested in slashing the Bill of Rights. There will always be unofficial groups and coalitions and there will be nothing you can do to stop that, nor should you. But what we can do is just refuse to recognize people as Reps or Dems, we can abolish any sort of official backing. Disband the RNC and the DNC. Simply refuse to give it legitimacy. When the state of the union happens, refuse to give a "opposition party rebuttal" At the very least! abolish this whole "reps sit on one side of the aisle, dems sit on the other side" nonsense. There is nothing wrong with people getting together, but the gov't doesn't have to recognize it and give it legitimacy so that the party eclipses the person as it is now.

The founders were definitely wary of parties and rightfully so. I don't see any problem with a concerted effort to at the VERY LEAST, discourage parties. We're seeing first hand the damage that can be done when party comes before country.

That and make all elections publicly funded..period. You'd see some drastic changes for the better

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=03l1n5rh


As we can currently observe, the richest persons/companies in the USA sit on their money and do not create new jobs.

Imho, "middle class" should represent the largest bracket in lieu of a population's makeup, driving culture, education, job creation and comfortable wealth. This is the most desirable realistic state (way of being) most persons would want to be in.

Democratically, from the bottom up, a society can thrive most, imho. This does not exclude anyone: A secure "low" society lifts the quality of living for the top gainers as well. The two-party system is highly detrimental for lasting change and sensible reforms. It is unlikely the two partys would part with the old system in favour of a more democratic coalition-based system, but a girl can dream.

I like Keynes, but Keynesian politics are hard to come by when the economy gets better. One big factor in the USA is the gaining economic libertarianism, which is on a utopian level of ideology on par with Reagonomics. Personally I prefer the soft ideology of reasonable adjustments orienting themsleves not along the lines of a factional party-framework, but along the lines of the realistically most beneficial proposal for the entire population. This sounds utopian as well, because it is: It is only possible in a multiple-party state, which the USA is unlikely to become.

What to do? Political "extremists" (left and right) should be shunned and kicked back to the margins where they belong, at least for a functioning two-party system.


This is all just my opinion, and it is in flux. If you spot a "mistake" in my reasonings or views, please tell me, I'm happy to learn and adjust my opinions, if reasonable. --> Tea-Partyers, fascists, communists and Libertarians can try, but they will probably just waste my time and theirs. --> Hard ideologies are all utopian in one way or another, secular religions all.

Anyone know which bill he's referring to?

He is referring to what I think is the H.R. 1540

With the infamous endless war section 1034.

Here it is in all of it's glorious unconstitutionality.

SEC. 1034. AFFIRMATION OF ARMED CONFLICT WITH AL-QAEDA, THE TALIBAN, AND ASSOCIATED FORCES.

Congress affirms that--

(1) the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad;

(2) the President has the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note);

(3) the current armed conflict includes nations, organization, and persons who--

(A) are part of, or are substantially supporting, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or

(B) have engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and

(4) the President’s authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority to detain belligerents, including persons described in paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities.

>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^ghark:
... Line of thought:
1Republicans and Democrats both have a long history of making great speeches, then doing the complete opposite in terms of legislation (Obama being the most recent example).

I'm down with that. Talk is cheap. When are we actually going to do something about it? For a very long time now, we've known what the problems are, we've even had a pretty good idea of how we can at least try and go about correcting these problems. But actually putting these solutions into action, that's the hard part, that's where we separate the men from the loudmouthed children.
Debate is great, but at some point, talking accomplishes nothing and we need to actually take action. Even if that action ends up being regrettable, at least we learn something and do better next time.
I'm sick of rhetoric


I wonder what the alternative is at this point - I looked at the vote numbers for independents or non GOP/Dem parties in the 2008 election and they seem really low. It's almost setup so that if you don't vote for one of the two main parties you are just shooting yourself in the foot, as your voice/vote will simply get drowned out by the media hype that surrounds the main runners.

It's similar in Australia - we have the Green Party (who do actually get quite a few votes), but the trouble with voting for them is that they tend to form a coalition with either of the two main parties who gets the majority of votes and simply do what they are told, like puppies. So in essence, if you voted Greens at the last election, you may as well have voted Labor, because that's who the Greens are taking their orders from.

@Lawdeedaw, I didn't mean to offend. I just get tired of the accusations that Obama somehow wants Gitmo to stay open, likes it being open, didn't even try to close it, etc. I think on the topic, he's tried, and has pretty much been defeated. I don't think lack of committment was the issue, and I don't think the politics of it would play out differently for Ron Paul. Also, Obama wasn't President in 2008, that was George Bush, who opened it, liked it being open, and argued that the world would end if someone closed it.

Also as sick as I am about bad intentions being ascribed to Obama, I'm just as sick of hearing noble intentions ascribed to Paul.

You know how everybody likes to trot out things Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc. said they'd do, but didn't get done? The same would happen with Paul. All the shit he promised to do, or not do, won't happen. He'd abandon some promises, break others, and sometimes just plain fail to deliver. He's a politician, not the second coming.

Also, the office of the President itself doesn't really have much power. Most of your power comes from your political coalitions, and Paul wouldn't have one at all. Even a proven consensus builder like Obama has found that Congressional partisanship trumps everything anymore. Paul, being a crank and a confrontational ideologue would get absolutely nowhere with either party. He's been in Congress for what, 30+ years? What's he ever accomplished? Even his wikipedia page struggles to find any legislative accomplishments.

Oh, and the media shitstorm that engulfs every President would absolutely eat him alive.

But all this is academic because he can't win the Presidency. He won't win the Republican nomination unless he abandons his principles, and if he doesn't win the nomination he won't run as an independent. If he did run as an independent, he'd just split the Republican vote and Obama would win reelection handily.

He's speaking a half truth, but I don't think he's calling the Tea Party people who believe in the extermination of people based on race or anything like that. He's trying to point out that the Tea Party, similar to the Nazi party, is an anti-establishment movement that has been born out of a troubled economy. That he's right about. He's also correct in observing that there doesn't seem to be any charismatic leader within the Tea Party. He's also correct in stating that there's a higher risk of radical parties coming to power during times of socio-economic upheavals.

He loses me in stating that the Tea Party is only about fear and hate, and have no proposed solutions. They are proposing a radical change in the federal budget, including massive cuts that adhere to radical conservative political philosophies, including massive cuts typically in social programs instead of defense. I vehemently disagree with that, but that's still a stated solution. I just wish politics were more about discussing rationally the pros and cons of an idea instead of loose associations with clearly horrible groups from history. You could make the case that the American progressive movement was a reaction to poor political and social environments, but that doesn't make the Progressive Movement bad.

He also is oversimplifying the Nazi rise to power. When you think about it, he contradicts himself. If Hitler simply rose to power because of exploiting popular discontent with the economy, then why did he never get the support of the majority of Germans in a free and fair election? Hitler did in fact exploit fear and malcontent in the German population caused by the Great Depression, but he never would have come to power had the conservative parties not attempted to co-op the Nazis to fight off the political left Social Democratic party and the Communist Party in Germany.

The rise of an extreme party in the US in the same way Nazis took control of Germany is very highly unlikely. While there are obvious negatives to the US two party political system, one strength is it does a very good job of preventing extremists from taking over. In Germany, the Nazi party exploited the fact there were numerous parties - the Conservative party, the Catholic Party, the Social Democratic party, the Communist party, and of course the Nazis to name some. Sure the US has other parties than the Democratic and Republican parties, but they're virtually insignificant in numbers and support. That simply wasn't the case in Weimar Germany, and in order to get a coalition government to get anything done, parties had to compromise and work together. Unfortunately, the conservative parties decided to work with the Nazis, making Hitler Chancellor, even though the Nazis were clearly anti-democratic, because they politically disagreed with the Social Democratic party. You can call the Tea Party whatever you want, but they certainly are in favor of Democracy.

Like the campaign for liberty that tours the nation? But your right, things start from the bottom down. It is always nice, though, to have hands from above as well. You can already see things slowing changing in the republican party, but it is still marginal in terms of majority. Like Dr. Paul says though, he won't consider it a success unless BOTH parties are chop full of his base ideals.


>> ^NetRunner:

@blankfist how about signing on to some sort of Instant Runoff Voting campaign, instead of begging people to vote for people who didn't even make it on the ballot in 2008, and who likely won't even run in 2012?
Also, I can tell you from personal experience that you can't really count on massive political transformation to happen from the White House down. It's gotta be from the bottom up.
If Paul were leading a movement to try to make the grassroots of the right anti-war, maybe I'd have a bit more affinity for him. But he isn't doing that at all. Instead, he mostly just comes on TV, bashes Democrats for wars (and anything else going wrong), mumbles something about Republicans being guilty "too", and suggests that the only solution is for him personally to have more authority and power. That has totally soured me on Paul, and really makes me think is just another sociopath in search of political power for his own gratification.
Rather than pin your hopes on individual politicians, I suggest you go for shifting public opinion. If enough people strongly believe that America should give up its role as a military superpower, then there will be endless politicians from both parties who will be all too happy to hop in front of that parade.
Incidentally, most of us liberals and Democratic voters already feel that way. You might want to look at the other political coalition, since they seem to feel pretty strongly about maintaining America's military preeminence forever.



What kind of spending of federal funds wouldn't end up in your district though? Perhaps I don't understand the setup, though?
>> ^jwray:

This could easily be fixed with a rule that requires congressmen to recuse themselves from voting on spending for their own district, in the same way that judges must recuse themselves from cases if they have a conflict of interest.

@blankfist how about signing on to some sort of Instant Runoff Voting campaign, instead of begging people to vote for people who didn't even make it on the ballot in 2008, and who likely won't even run in 2012?

Also, I can tell you from personal experience that you can't really count on massive political transformation to happen from the White House down. It's gotta be from the bottom up.

If Paul were leading a movement to try to make the grassroots of the right anti-war, maybe I'd have a bit more affinity for him. But he isn't doing that at all. Instead, he mostly just comes on TV, bashes Democrats for wars (and anything else going wrong), mumbles something about Republicans being guilty "too", and suggests that the only solution is for him personally to have more authority and power. That has totally soured me on Paul, and really makes me think is just another sociopath in search of political power for his own gratification.

Rather than pin your hopes on individual politicians, I suggest you go for shifting public opinion. If enough people strongly believe that America should give up its role as a military superpower, then there will be endless politicians from both parties who will be all too happy to hop in front of that parade.

Incidentally, most of us liberals and Democratic voters already feel that way. You might want to look at the other political coalition, since they seem to feel pretty strongly about maintaining America's military preeminence forever.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I did, but it seemed like you said the reason we shouldn't care about Libya is because of Iraq. And then turned around and said this isn't like Iraq, even though it is clearly like Iraq. In other words, you were mad because this is just like Iraq, and because it isn't like Iraq.



I'm sorry, but equating the current situation in Libya with the almost-decade-long debacle in Iraq is completely retarded. In no way did I say the two were alike. In no way at all did I even imply that the two were alike in any way. You said that. I didn't.

Iraq was brought about by post 9/11 crazy-fervor. Donald Rumsfeld flat out lied to America by saying that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The administration did everything they could to imply that Iraq was even somehow responsible for the World Trade Center attack and the vast majority of this country bought into it. Even supported it while somehow managing to feign complete ignorance of the whole Saudi Arabia issue. Remember the coalition of the willing? England and Poland and a long list of tiny countries with no military power whatsoever? How about the fact that there have been massive amounts of troops stationed in Iraq since the very beginning? Or that our then president Bush was informed, by God, via revelation that it was time to attack Iraq?

Meanwhile, this year in Libya, in a time of protests all over the world, we have reputable sources (not government investigators) reporting that not only are people in Libya protesting and trying to overthrow the government (a movement which never got off the ground during Saddam's regime) but that the dictator of the country is encouraging anyone on his side to kill any civilians who disagree with him. Now remember, this wasn't a secret plan carried out by word of mouth, it was a major news broadcast. And you have a problem with the fact that the president wanted to do something about it? I'd think that standing up for the basic human right to not be killed for your opinion would be seen as meritorious. Unlike the last president who needed a lame excuse.

As yet, there are no troops on the ground. The motive is not some concocted story. No one is even arguing over the motive for going in. It's been very clearly established. The US isn't even doing the largest portion of the work. Our partners include actual countries (no offense to Mauritania and the glorious country of Pitcairn Island) who are taking part in the assault as well.

Maybe this too will be proven to be a lie but the fact is people's lives are allegedly in danger NOW. And it's not like we're invading the country any time soon. We're not even trying to strike directly at troops. Sorry, but it seems like complete ignorance to me to claim that these to events are similar in any way. It seems like people are just looking for a way to blame the current president for the state of the world.

Yes, because the fact that people who have lived under despotism, tyrrany and war for 40 years, are resuming their daily activities and even enjoy themselves in theme parks, is just SOOO boring! Lets just focus on the fact that some brainwashed trolls of Islam are blowing themselves and fellow citizens up, and blame it on the secular coalition that probably fixed that zoo, built schools and arranged the first free election since forever